zlacker

No problem, let us try and explain.

Intelligence is a process in which "you have thought over a problem at length" (this is also our good old Einstein, paraphrased).

What is that "thinking"?

You have taken a piece of your world model (the piece which subjected to your investigation), made mental experiments on it, you have criticized, _criticized_ the possible statements ("A is B") that could be applied to it, you have arrived to some conclusions of different weight (more credible, more tentative).

For something to be Intelligent, it must follow that process. (What does it, has an implemented "module" that does it.)

Without such process, how can an engine be attributed the quality of Intelligence? It may "look" like it - which is even more dangerous. "Has it actually thought about it?" should be a doubt duly present in awareness.

About the original post (making its statements more explicit):

That "module" is meant to produce «insights» that go (at least) in the direction of «true», of returning true statements about some "reality", and/or in the direction of «subtle», as opposed to "trivial". That module implements "critical thinking" - there is no useful Intelligence without it. Intelligence is evaluated in actually solving problems: reliably providing true statements and good insights (certainly not for verosimilarity, which is instead a threat - you may be deceived). Of two Authors, one is more intelligent because its statements are truer or more insightful - in a /true/ way (and not because, as our good old J. may have been read, one "seems" to make more sense. Some of the greatest Authors have been accused of possibly not making sense - actual content is not necessarily directly accessible); «/true/ way» means that when you ask a student about Solon you judge he has understood the matter not just because he provided the right dates for events (he has read the texts), but because he can answer intelligent questions about it correctly.

>>mdp202+(OP)
Thank you for going into it.

You make an absolute pile of assumptions here and the tl;dr appears to be that humans (or just you) are exceptional and inherently above any sort of imitation. I do not find such argumentation to be compelling, no matter how well dressed up it is.

>>krageo+q3
Devastatingly bad reading, Krageon: I wrote that to have Intelligence in an Engine, you have to implement at least some Critical Thinking into it (and that it has to be a "good" one), and you understood that I would have claimed that "you cannot implement it" - again, after having insisted that "you have to build it explicitly" (or at least you have to build something that in the end happens to do it)?!

You have to build it and you have to build that.

The assumption there is that you cannot call something Intelligent without it having Critical Thinking (and other things - Ontology building etc). If you disagree, provide an argument for it.

And by the way: that «or just you», again, and again without real grounds, cannot be considered part of the "proudest moments" of these pages.

--

Edit:

Disambiguation: of course with "intelligence" you may mean different things. 'intelligence' just means "the ability to look inside". But "[useful] Intelligence" is that with well trained Critical Thinking (and more).

>>mdp202+c5
The reading is not bad, I am just stuck at the point of the conversation where you claim to have something figured out that is not yet figured out (the nature of consciousness, or what it means to be intelligent). There is no scientific or philosophical consensus for it, so it is my instinct to not engage too deeply with the material. After all, what is the point? No doubt it seems very consistent to you, but it does not come across as coherent to me. That doesn't make my reading "devastatingly bad", which you could reasonably say was the case if you had gotten across and indeed convinced most folks that you speak to about this. Instead, you must consider it is either the communication or the reasoning that is devastatingly bad.

All of that said, your method of response (not courteous, which can be okay) and the content of your posts (bordering on the delusional, which is absolutely not okay) are upsetting me. I will end my part of the chain here so I do not find myself in an inadvertent flame war.

>>krageo+R7
> the nature of consciousness

As per my edit in the parent post, I am talking about "useful" Intelligence: that may be entirely different from consciousness. A well matured though, "thought at length", may probably be useful, while a rushed thought may probably be detrimental. I am not speaking about consciousness. I am not even speaking of "natural intelligence": I am speaking about Intelligence as a general process. That process near "How well, how deeply have you thought about it".

> my reading "devastatingly bad"

What made your reading devastatingly bad is the part in which you supposed that somebody said that "it cannot be implemented" - you have written «above any sort of imitation». I wrote that, having insisted on "modules to be implemented", you should have had the opposite idea: the constituents of Intelligence - with which I mean the parts of the process in that sort of Intelligence that "says smart things having produced them with a solid process" (not relevant to "consciousness") - should be implemented.

> delusional

Again very avoidable. If you find that something is delusional, justify your view.

> flame wars

I am just discussing, and try to show what I find evident, and reasoning. Hint: when wanting to avoid flame wars, "keep it rational".